End of the World Party

[alvarezbassist17]

Yeah, I totally agree with what Trey said, but there's a few more aspects to the whole problem.  Because the global economy is so shitty, and more specifically in the US we have a shitty economy coupled with a government that is sucking up every last bit of credit it can get its hands on, the amount of private investment out there is extremely crippled.  When you add to that the fact that the government has taken up the responsibility of subsidizing the industries that it considers most "green," the disincentives mount like crazy because they are both taking resources away from voluntary or private efforts to fix these problems and taking up the cause of investing for us, displacing the private efforts that might be viable.  And because of the fact that it's the government investing, the money is invested for a political return, rather than an economic return.  99.99% of the time, they're not trying to create viable industries, they're trying to buy votes, no matter what party you're referring to.  So even if they had the discretion to invest wherever they wanted, there's no way they're going to invest in the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world, working on shit in their garage.  They're going to invest where the unions are strongest and where they have the most potential for buying votes.  Obama's stimulus is an excellent empirical example, and I could provide you with plenty of links to stories of where that money's gone.

There is also the technology and physics factor.  There is literally nothing available with the kind of energy density of fossil fuels at the moment.  So your argument to me sounds kind of like saying that the free market doesn't work because people haven't invested enough for us to have a battery that can power an iPhone for more than 12 hours.  Say this situation was just as important as our fossil fuel situation.  Judging by the massive increase in technology in the last few years, would you then say that nobody would ever invest the resources to make a better battery?  Or would you just trust that one day the technology would be there and it would be in Apple's best interests to use it?  It's the same thing: no matter how many resources are diverted to wherever, things that aren't viable with current technology are not going to be until breakthroughs are made and the best way to spur breakthroughs is to allow for free markets, as well as letting people keep what they earn.

Also, you have to take into account the principle of regime uncertainty.  Because everyone is scared by the violation of property rights and massive inflation, we are getting not only the lack of investment, but also this short-term mindset you are referring to.  Because the governmental situation around the aggregate world is so uncertain, everybody is investing for short-term returns.  This is not only a function of over-regulation, but is also a function of a lack of sound money and property rights.  No one can soundly plan for the future, so they must get everything they can right now.  I mean I can see how you would assume that behavior in our current market, but I think it's very clear that we couldn't be much further from a free market at the moment.

Oh and I also did want to point out that people and companies have invested in technology for cleaner cars, coal, etc. when they could have just either put out less or made engines smaller to conform to emissions standards.

[blixa]

what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.

[marco j]

This thread sucks.

[Variable]

Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.

But long story short.  I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie.  I kind of forgot what we are talking about.  What does this have to do with the end of the world? 

[marco j]

^LOL

Another reason that the thread sucks.

[blixa]

Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.

But long story short.  I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie.  I kind of forgot what we are talking about.  What does this have to do with the end of the world? 

i think some countries that didn't go into recession are still not doing enough, but as nicholas stern has said before about the copenhagen summit - it was cold, chaotic, quarrelsome, and disappointing but not nothing. the disappointing outcome of the climate summit was largely down to "arrogance" on the part of rich countries.

i say this as an australian and my country didn't go into recession and we're not doing enough but it's not nothing. although now that the greens have power in the senate, it will be better and perhaps we can get some environmental action through. mexico's got the best climate change policy because of the finance ministry being involved. they're thinking very carefully in a constructive way about climate change.

[alvarezbassist17]

Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.

But long story short.  I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie.  I kind of forgot what we are talking about.  What does this have to do with the end of the world?  

Haha the tangent started off by me seeing the topic and promising myself "oh goddammit, if someone in here says something about the world ending from global warming or something like that i'm gonna flip a shit."  

But yeah, all that, and privatizing everything that either moves or doesn't move.

what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.

"The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was produced by a team led by Stern at HM Treasury, and was released in October 2006. In the Review, climate change is described as an economic externality. Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that the world economy can lower its greenhouse gas emissions at a significant but manageable cost. The Review concludes that immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to reduce the worst risks of climate change."

No, no, no, no, no.  Goddammit, no. Both absolutely the wrong ways to cure the problem, and a faulty premise.  I just love how they call it climate change these days.  What a hoot these people are.  Seriously, I don't wear tinfoil hats or anything, but you really can't see that the political class is just using climate change to redistribute wealth and nothing more?

Check it out:

"The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles."

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/
Austria Retreat Papers


I know on its surface it sounds like really nice, compassionate and typical hippie talk, but you've been so duped it's insane.  oh and also, carbon trading is legalized pollution (if you consider CO2 to be a pollutant, anyway).

[Vesanic]

Let's say that I even give you the scenario where there really is man-made global warming, and we've already used most of what the earth has to give us (both of which are completely and utterly bogus).  Shouldn't we then be working even harder, therefore using more natural resources in order to create the technology necessary to be able to run the globe "sustainably?"  Or are we just going to have to take these severe cuts in our living standards until we aren't using as much resources or creating as much pollution as your completely arbitrary standards would allow?

( Haha, I love you, man. Your replies are always the shit. )


I'm not saying that we have already used most of what earth has to give us, but the wound is pretty deep, and although the natural process must probably have its own responsibility, I'm convinced that the human being has a BIG part of responsibility in what is happening to the world. Call me idiot, but we do waste tons of energy for nothing.

[blixa]

Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.

But long story short.  I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie.  I kind of forgot what we are talking about.  What does this have to do with the end of the world? 

Haha the tangent started off by me seeing the topic and promising myself "oh goddammit, if someone in here says something about the world ending from global warming or something like that i'm gonna flip a shit." 

But yeah, all that, and privatizing everything that either moves or doesn't move.

what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.

"The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was produced by a team led by Stern at HM Treasury, and was released in October 2006. In the Review, climate change is described as an economic externality. Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that the world economy can lower its greenhouse gas emissions at a significant but manageable cost. The Review concludes that immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to reduce the worst risks of climate change."

No, no, no, no, no.  Goddammit, no. Both absolutely the wrong ways to cure the problem, and a faulty premise.  I just love how they call it climate change these days.  What a hoot these people are.  Seriously, I don't wear tinfoil hats or anything, but you really can't see that the political class is just using climate change to redistribute wealth and nothing more?

Check it out:

"The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles."

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/
Austria Retreat Papers


I know on its surface it sounds like really nice, compassionate and typical hippie talk, but you've been so duped it's insane.  oh and also, carbon trading is legalized pollution (if you consider CO2 to be a pollutant, anyway).

no offence, but i don't appreciate you saying stuff like this. i have not been duped. i have been respectful towards you but you can't seem to express your opinion without using condescending names. this is the exact reason why there has never been a constructive debate on this subject between global warming deniers and scientists who believe that it is happening. whether you believe the likelihood of global warming or not, you will see that the risks are immense - we can't take away the risks, but we can reduce them drastically by the way we do things. we emit 47 million tonnes per annum. we should be cutting that to 35 then to 20. we have to cut emissions by 7 and a 1/2 over a 40 year period. we need creativity and technology to make this story good. the future is dependent on low carbon.

when you have the majority of scientists agreeing on something then it is likely that it is happening. you will obviously not have any other opinion because you've already adopted the denialist approach. i would rather take the option of doing something about global warming than taking a risk and doing nothing.

[blixa]

also climate change will redistribute wealth around the world, both within and between nations. if and when the transition to a low carbon economy occurs, countries which have been slow to move will find that their high carbon assets are stranded owing to shifts in the full cost of dirty production processes. it is not impossible, given the magnitude of the gains from 'winning' in critical low carbon technologies, that a competitive dynamic will develop where countries race to develop the leading low carbon technology. given the significance of coal to the business-as-usual growth path of the global economy, at present carbon capture and sequestration would appear to be one of these critical technologies.

reaching a new climate agreement is both urgent and important, and will be exceptionally challenging. a new global deal on climate is nevertheless possible and extremely necessary.

[alvarezbassist17]

Well you have to be able to read above a 2nd grade level to appreciate the conversation.

But long story short.  I think Cory and I agree that if the economy wasn't so fucked up (yes, that is the fault of the government) that we would have more people able and willing to invest in new forms of energy and.............I'm not going to lie.  I kind of forgot what we are talking about.  What does this have to do with the end of the world?  

Haha the tangent started off by me seeing the topic and promising myself "oh goddammit, if someone in here says something about the world ending from global warming or something like that i'm gonna flip a shit."  

But yeah, all that, and privatizing everything that either moves or doesn't move.

what the three of you guys have said sound a lot like things that nicholas stern addresses in most of his public lectures that i have heard.

"The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change was produced by a team led by Stern at HM Treasury, and was released in October 2006. In the Review, climate change is described as an economic externality. Regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading are recommended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is argued that the world economy can lower its greenhouse gas emissions at a significant but manageable cost. The Review concludes that immediate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are necessary to reduce the worst risks of climate change."

No, no, no, no, no.  Goddammit, no. Both absolutely the wrong ways to cure the problem, and a faulty premise.  I just love how they call it climate change these days.  What a hoot these people are.  Seriously, I don't wear tinfoil hats or anything, but you really can't see that the political class is just using climate change to redistribute wealth and nothing more?

Check it out:

"The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles."

http://www.citizenlink.com/2010/09/united-nations%E2%80%98new-plan-%E2%80%98redistribute-wealth%E2%80%99-remove-sovereignty-barriers/
Austria Retreat Papers


I know on its surface it sounds like really nice, compassionate and typical hippie talk, but you've been so duped it's insane.  oh and also, carbon trading is legalized pollution (if you consider CO2 to be a pollutant, anyway).

no offence, but i don't appreciate you saying stuff like this. i have not been duped. i have been respectful towards you but you can't seem to express your opinion without using condescending names. this is the exact reason why there has never been a constructive debate on this subject between global warming deniers and scientists who believe that it is happening. whether you believe the likelihood of global warming or not, you will see that the risks are immense - we can't take away the risks, but we can reduce them drastically by the way we do things. we emit 47 million tonnes per annum. we should be cutting that to 35 then to 20. we have to cut emissions by 7 and a 1/2 over a 40 year period. we need creativity and technology to make this story good. the future is dependent on low carbon.

when you have the majority of scientists agreeing on something then it is likely that it is happening. you will obviously not have any other opinion because you've already adopted the denialist approach. i would rather take the option of doing something about global warming than taking a risk and doing nothing.

also climate change will redistribute wealth around the world, both within and between nations. if and when the transition to a low carbon economy occurs, countries which have been slow to move will find that their high carbon assets are stranded owing to shifts in the full cost of dirty production processes. it is not impossible, given the magnitude of the gains from 'winning' in critical low carbon technologies, that a competitive dynamic will develop where countries race to develop the leading low carbon technology. given the significance of coal to the business-as-usual growth path of the global economy, at present carbon capture and sequestration would appear to be one of these critical technologies.

reaching a new climate agreement is both urgent and important, and will be exceptionally challenging. a new global deal on climate is nevertheless possible and extremely necessary.

Sorry I took so long to respond to this, but this really got my goat, so to speak and I wanted to approach it again with a cooler head.  But I make no promises.

My first beef is that what you are talking about with halving our carbon output in the name of "not taking a risk" on something that #1 you know deep down that you cannot prove and #2 you (or anybody else) truly cannot predict its effect on the world and whether or not it will be bad for humanity is not just a matter of biking to work a couple times a week or turning off the shower when you wash your hair or even switching to solar panels or wind turbines.  It is literally global impoverishment and a death sentence for people around the world.  Everything we do requires energy, a society arising from poverty requires energy, and everything we use to produce energy (besides nuclear) produces CO2, even wind turbines and solar panels have fossil-fuel backups for their lull-times, not to mention the fact that their production requires CO2 emissions.  In addition to economic freedom, what leads a society to prosperity is cheap, abundant energy, which comes in the form of fossil fuels at the moment.  So what you're talking about doing is dismantling modern-day prosperity.  If that's not what you're talking about, then enlighten me as to what exists that can replace fossil fuels, then tell me that the technology exists to implement them, and where you can drum up the resources to invest in them when you CAN'T USE ANY OF THE ENERGY SOURCES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO DEVELOP THESE TECHNOLOGIES.

My second beef is that you people are completely willing to violate international, national, and personal sovereignty in the name of something that #1 you know deep down that you cannot prove and #2 you (or anybody else) truly cannot predict its effect on the world and whether or not it will be bad for humanity.  You are willing to tell somebody that even if they disagree with you, even if maybe, just maybe there isn't calamity around the corner, that leadership around the world should be able to do away with his ability to prosper, his ability to pay for something whose market price was established on a voluntary basis, which was calculated based on private property (as much as is allowed by the global governance, anyway), and his ability to save his money, therefore providing the capital to invest in something that might even be more environmentally friendly?  That is what is truly disgusting to me, that this movement has finally found a scare tactic that can inflict socialism on every single person who consumes energy.  They can now take away the rights to private property because that while previously, air pollution did have geographic limits on its effects, CO2 pollution "affects every last one of us."  As a Libertarian, that scares the living fuck out of me, and it is my belief that it should do the same to any other straight-thinking person.  I also find it just plumb disgusting that you don't see anything wrong with government-mandated redistribution of wealth, no matter the cause in whose name it is done.  That is stealing, theft.  Period.  There is no other way to define it, and in my opinion it is one of the most immoral attitudes that one can have and attribute much of the problems in the world (especially in later 20th/21st century America) to that attitude.

My last beef is that you just do not understand economics, but feel the need to decree these things that have dire economic consequences.  How is the rationing of energy going to lead to better technology?  It makes literally no sense because, while we are investing in new technologies all of the time, we still have to support ourselves.  So taking away more and more of the economic pie means that people are going to take hits in their standard of living and ability to save at the same time.  So the savings that may have been available to invest in these new technologies are now used to pay for higher electric bills or greater taxes.  Look, things have already become so much more environmentally friendly over the course of the last 150 years.  The principle is this: people don't want to live in a dirty place, but feeding themselves and their families will come before that any day of the week.  That's why the least environmentally friendly nations are the poorest ones.  You need wealth as a society to be able to afford to invest in more environmentally friendly technologies.  That is rule numero uno.  And with the world on the precipice of another financial calamity far greater than that of 2008 because of the "compassionate" spending policies of your Liberal counterparts, there is absolutely no way that we will be able to afford to invest in these technologies, even without the extreme emissions limits.

I watched that video with Stephen Schneider, and I didn't really hear anything new that I haven't heard.  Did you read any of that book I gave to you?  Horner goes into far greater detail with citations and all that jazz, much more deeply than I could in a post.  

This link still works
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PF9ZSQCZ

Also, here's my favorite talk show host (who is extremely logical and eloquent and who really, really knows his stuff) talking about this topic, if you'd prefer audio to reading.

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS121010_1st%20Hr%20Global%20Warming.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS121010_2nd%20Hr%20More%20News.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS122710_Hr1_GlobalWarmingHoax.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS122710_Hr2_GlobalWarming.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM